Monday, October 18, 2010


The EPA really missed the boat on the E15 ethanol decision. Our country is ready for more corn ethanol in our vehicles and in our economy. At least E12 as a mandate would have been positive direction.

But they waited too long to make a decision and when they did it was too little too late. And why did they approve E-15 in 2007 and later vehicles? That just confuses the issue even more.

I know some of you don't agree with Ethanol but I disagree with your conclusion. Ethanol is not a total solution to our dependence on foreign oil but an excellent way to produce jobs and rely less on foreign imports until we find a better fuel solution. We get cleaner air to boot! How can you argue against that?

Consider this:

Research shows a 35 to 46% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions and a 50 to 60% reduction in fossil-energy consumption depending on the use of ethanol use in the regions tested.

The production and use of 10.6 billion gallons of corn ethanol in 2009 displaced the need for more than 321.4 million barrels of oil. (Those are very conservative governement figures as current ethanol applications are often more efficient than that.)

For every one billion gallons of corn ethanol produced, 10,000 to 20,000 American jobs are created that cannot be outsourced.

Corn ethanol fuel saved American consumers and taxpayers more than $32 billion in 2009
For every unit of energy required to make corn ethanol, 2.3 units of energy are produced, making corn ethanol "energy positive."
Some vehicles obtain a greater fuel economy using increased blends of corn ethanol compared to using unleaded gasoline. Many farmers and others blend a third of a tank of E-85 with their 87 pump octane gasoline which is normally 60 cents per gallon cheaper here with little difference in power and fuel efficiency.

I still don't see why all US gasoline vehicles are not flex fuel abled from the factory so we can choose which fuel we want to use. I see minute differences from flex fueled vehicles to standard gasoline vehicles.

When unemployment is our number one problem in our country right now I don't see why we don't use more ethanol to keep and increase good jobs in the US. No one can explain this to me. Even Brazil went to 100% ethanol to keep money and jobs in their country.

I can see the point of livestock farmers who have depended on cheap feed to produce economical meat and dairy products. But the age of cheap feed left before ethanol was much of an issue. I don't think it is their root problem.

Farmers who feed ruminant animals have always depended on cheaper roughage for the major part of their animal diets but they have used the cheaper corn in the past as a substitute for roughage. It was easier and just made sense at the time. Poultry and swine producers don't have as much of a choice as their animals can't digest roughage. But there are so many grain choices, corn was cheap so they used corn. Now corn is in such demand they have to look for cheaper grains.

I don't have all the answers but I know ethanol helps our country rely on our own resources with many benefits. Jobs, cleaner fuel, cleaner air are just a few of the benefits of the ethanol industry.
What do you think?
Ed Winkle


  1. Amen, Brother. Couldn't agree more.

  2. Thanks Darren and thanks Dwayne Siekman for all you do for Ohio Corn Growers.

  3. Ed

    Great article! It is a mystery to me why our government is so slow to pass legislation for alternative fuels like ethanol.

    Brent Pohlman